The Rosemont Cubs?

[buckweaver]

I feel pretty comfortable saying the Rosemont thing could work, from a financial perspective, but it will never happen. And the Ricketts family would be short-sighted if they ever allowed it to happen. Because the Cubs would get a "ballpark boost" for five years, at most, and then they would become just another team that needs to win consistently to draw any fans to their pretty (expensive), new (expensive) and modern (expensive) ballpark.

As others have noted up-thread, the reason the Cubs are valued so highly as a franchise is in large part because of the draw of their ballpark (and its location.) They become the Windy City version of the Mets if they move anywhere outside the Loop.

By the way, a partial list of rumored Cubs moves since they moved into Wrigley:

1918-20 - back to the West Side (near current United Center)
1946 - Riverview
1964 - Grant Park
1967 - Near South Side (planned $50M 3-stadium sports complex at Dearborn Street Station for Cubs/Sox, Bears and Hawks/Bulls)
1971 - Oak Brook
1977 - Somewhere on the lakefront
1983 - Schaumburg

Rosemont is the latest in a long line of rumors.

 

[YGBFKM]

Went to Wrigley late April/early May last year. Froze my patookus off while I pondered: 1) just how dumpy Wrigley really is; and 2) just how annoying the great bulk of the Cubs' 20-something fandom is.

It's not age specific.

 

[buckweaver]

Baseball fans love new stadiums.

Yes. For five years. Then the novelty wears off (and it wears off sooner than that if you have a losing team all five years.)

Then what?

Naming rights and luxury suites aren't helping the Padres, Brewers, Diamondbacks, Astros, Padres, Mariners, Pirates or Indians stay consistently competitive, on or off the field. (They were always profitable, of course. That's not really the question here.)

 

[tmr]

I feel pretty comfortable saying the Rosemont thing could work, from a financial perspective, but it will never happen. And the Ricketts family would be short-sighted if they ever allowed it to happen. Because the Cubs would get a "ballpark boost" for five years, at most, and then they would become just another team that needs to win consistently to draw any fans to their pretty (expensive), new (expensive) and modern (expensive) ballpark.

As others have noted up-thread, the reason the Cubs are valued so highly as a franchise is in large part because of the draw of their ballpark (and its location.) They become the Windy City version of the Mets if they move anywhere outside the Loop.

By the way, a partial list of rumored Cubs moves since they moved into Wrigley:

1918-20 - back to the West Side (near current United Center)
1946 - Riverview
1964 - Grant Park
1967 - Near South Side (planned $50M 3-stadium sports complex at Dearborn Street Station for Cubs/Sox, Bears and Hawks/Bulls)
1971 - Oak Brook
1977 - Somewhere on the lakefront
1983 - Schaumburg

Rosemont is the latest in a long line of rumors.

And I'm not even sure they'd get a bump. A lot of fans would get pissed they moved it. The PR hit, especially national, would be terrible.

 

[YGBFKM]

Chicago just wouldn't be the same without those loserly losers losing at Clark/Addison/Sheffield/Waveland.

 

[buckweaver]

And I'm not even sure they'd get a bump. A lot of fans would get pissed they moved it. The PR hit, especially national, would be terrible.

How bad a "national" hit have the Yankees taken after moving away from their historic ballpark? (Granted, they just moved across the street. But it's not like tourists are clamoring to go to the Bronx.)

If the Cubs moved to a suburb that's easy to access by car/train, near the airport, with a new stadium that was a genuine modern palace — not sure how anything in Rosemont can be a "palace," but let's say they do build a beautiful facility like PNC Park in Rosemont for the sake of argument here — and they start winning ... how big is the hit, really?

If they win a freaking World Series in Rosemont, I would bet a lot of Tom Ricketts' money that anyone still pissed they're not in Wrigley would start showing up at Cubs games again.

 

[YankeeFan]

Baseball fans love new stadiums.

Yes. For five years. Then the novelty wears off (and it wears off sooner than that if you have a losing team all five years.)

Then what?

Naming rights and luxury suites aren't helping the Padres, Brewers, Diamondbacks, Astros, Padres, Mariners, Pirates or Indians stay consistently competitive, on or off the field. (They were always profitable, of course. That's not really the question here.)

Most of those markets aren't as big as Chicago. Some of those markets are not as established as Chicago is as a baseball market.

There are lots and lots of Cubs fans, and they don't all come from a few neighborhoods on the Northside of Chicago. In fact, many of their fans are turned off by the drunken atmosphere at Wrigley, not to mention the traffic getting in and out of there, and the lack of (and/or the expense of) parking near the stadium.

And, let's look at Rosemont some more. There's a big convention center right there. (And there's another one in Schaumburg). There are a bunch of hotels there too. Now, some of the folks staying at those hotels are there because they have an early morning flight, or because they missed a connection, but many of them are in town for conventions, trade shows, business meetings, etc.

You don't think they'd rather go to a Cubs game than go to Toby Keith's Bar & Grill?

The Cubs would also help the convention center book more dates, which would bring in more fans.

And, families from Iowa, and elsewhere would make the trip once a year.

 

[LongTimeListener]

YF is working for the Ricketts family, I see. Is this a Continental Airlines connection?

 

[YankeeFan]

YF is working for the Ricketts family, I see. Is this a Continental Airlines connection?

No. No connection to anyone at the Cubs.

But a new ballpark can drive a lot of revenue, as can night games (with the tv revenue). I think the numbers would work for the Cubs in Rosemont.

 

[I Should Coco]

As a "Chicagoland" native I'll add one thing to this discussion:

Wrigley Field ITSELF wasn't a tourist attraction until Harry Carey, cable TV, Ryne Sandberg, etc., made it one in the 1980s. Before 1984, the Cubs struggled to draw fans ... despite the "historic" stadium.

I remember attending a game with my Little League team in 1982 or so. Got a foul ball from Larry Bowa not by catching it, but by beating other kids on my team as we raced through section after section of empty seats.

 

[LongTimeListener]

So even at that early age, you were preparing not to be among the 85 percent of the forkin' world that works?

 

[I Should Coco]

Nice, LTL.

Actually, even at 10 years old, I probably realized, "If Larry Bowa is the best the Cubs can do at shortshop ... no wonder I root, root, root for the White Sox"